AFRICA-ISRAEL INVESTMENTS: Series 9 Bondholders' Suit May Proceed-----------------------------------------------------------------Globes reports that the Tel Aviv District Court Judge AmiramBenyamini on Feb. 13 approved a class-action lawsuit againstAfrica-Israel Investments Ltd., controlled by chairman Lev Leviev,over the company's 2009 debt settlement. The lawsuit was filed byBenjamin Asulin, who sold Africa-Israel Series 9 bonds at loss,after the debt settlement, when it became clear that the companywould not redeem them. He claims to have lost NIS52,599.

The class-action suit was approved on behalf of all Africa-IsraelSeries 9 bondholders who held bonds from the issue date on June 1,2009, through August 28, 2009, and who sold the bonds betweenAugust 30, when the company published the financial report whichindicated the bad shape that it was in, and October 29, 2009, whentrading in the bonds was stopped as part of the debt settlement.

Mr. Asulin manages a private investment portfolio worth NIS2.5million. Africa-Israel's Series 9 bond was only issued toinstitutions in 2005 and was due to mature on November 10, 2009.On May 7, 2009, the institutions decided to list the bond fortrading on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).

According to the court minutes, Mr. Asulin says, "This wasbasically a conspiracy by the company and the investmentinstitutions, because of the company's financial condition, andwas intended to enable the institutions to sell the bonds theyheld to the public."

Africa-Israel says that the bonds were listed for trading becauseit wanted to make a bond buy-back. However, according to the courtminutes, "The company never made the bond buy-back, citing thecompany's financial shape. The claimant views the announcement ofthe company's intention to buy back the bonds as a falsepresentation on its part, and that the contention that the companydid not disclose to investors that the listing of the bonds fortrading was actually at the request of the investmentinstitutions."

On May 31, 2009, Africa-Israel published its financial report forthe first quarter, in which it stated. "The company hassufficient financial sources to meet its commitments in theforeseeable future", and that it posted a quarterly net profit ofNIS1 billion.

According to the court minutes, Mr. Asulin bought the bonds solelyon the strength of a "Globes" article from the same day, whichquoted then Africa-Israel CEO Izzy Cohen as saying, "The profit isa demonstration of Africa-Israel's strength . . . The valuationsreflect the current situation, and are expected to continue risingwith the opening of commercial centers . . . Africa-Israel has apolicy of meeting its commitments, and I see no problem at thistime in meeting the commitments."

Subsequently, however, Africa-Israel suffered heavy losses, andits auditor attached a going concern warning to the company'sfinancial report for the second quarter of 2009. The company thenannounced that it would seek a debt settlement. The price of theSeries 9 bond fell almost 50% in the week following thepublication of the financials. Mr. Asulin, who bought bonds forNIS422,000, sold them for NIS366,000. He alleges that the companyconcealed information from the public before the publication ofthe financials about its ability to meet its commitments,resulting in buyers of the Series 9 bond losing money on theinvestment. He says that the company should have shared thewarning signs known to its executives with the public.

Judge Benyamini set a prehearing on the case for May 22. Therespondents will file a statement of defense within 45 days, andthe statement of response will be filed within 30 days afterwards.Africa-Israel will also pay Mr. Asulin NIS70,000 in court costs.

ALLIANCE ONE: Hearings in Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Ended in Jan.---------------------------------------------------------------Hearings with respect to the remaining claims in the class actionlawsuit filed against Alliance One International, Inc.'s Braziliansubsidiary concluded on January 23, 2013, according to theCompany's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 27, 2012.

On June 6, 2008, the Company's Brazilian subsidiary and a numberof other tobacco processors were notified of a class actioninitiated by the ALPAG -- Associacao Lourenciana de PequenosAgricultrores ("Association of Small Farmers of Sao Lourenco").The case is currently before the 2nd civil court of Sao Lourencodo Sul. On April 20, 2012, the Company's motion to dismiss theclass action was granted in part and denied in part.

Hearings with respect to the remaining claims, which relate topractices regarding the weighing and grading of tobacco, concludedon January 23, 2013. The outcome with respect to these remainingclaims is uncertain as to both timing and result. Due to thebroad scope of the pleading, the ultimate exposure if anunfavorable outcome is received is not estimable.

Headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, Alliance OneInternational Inc. -- http://aointl.com/-- is an independent leaf tobacco merchant. It provides worldwide service to the largecigarette manufacturers. It purchases tobacco in more than 45countries and serves manufacturers of cigarettes and otherconsumer tobacco products in over 90 countries. The Company'srevenues are primarily comprised of sales of processed tobacco andfees charged for related services to manufacturers of consumertobacco products around the world.

AVX CORP: Myrtle Beach Factory-Related Suits Pending in S.C.------------------------------------------------------------There are two lawsuits pending with respect to property adjacentto AVX Corporation's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claimingproperty values have been negatively impacted by alleged migrationof certain pollutants from the Company's property. On November27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina State Court bycertain individuals as a class action. Another lawsuit is acommercial lawsuit filed on January 16, 2008, in South CarolinaState Court. The Company says it intends to defend vigorously theclaims that have been asserted in these two lawsuits. At thisstage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as toresponsible parties or the amount, if any, of damages. Based onits estimate of potential outcomes, the Company has accruedapproximately $0.4 million with respect to these cases as ofDecember 31, 2012.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012.

BAYER: Injury Claims May be Added to Yaz Class Action in Canada---------------------------------------------------------------The prescription drug resource center DrugRisk.com is alertingwomen taking the birth control drugs Yaz or Yasmin of newinformation added to the site which shows patients in Canada haveproposed the joining of injury claims into a Yaz class action.Meanwhile, Bayer continues to settle claims over blood clots filedin the United States.

"The goal of DrugRisk is to improve patient safety througheducation. This includes the latest warnings, recalls and legalaction related to popular prescription drugs and medical devices.Patients who are informed can better discuss their options withtheir doctor and decide if they need the advice of a lawyer,"explains DrugRisk representative Ryan Mayer.

The resource center had previously added warnings about birthcontrol drugs like Yaz and Yasmin from experts such as theAmerican College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who statedthat birth control pills containing drospirenone may present ahigher risk of blood clots.

DrugRisk.com also contains information about the thousands of Yazlawsuits which have been filed by patients in the U.S. over bloodclots, which have been consolidated in a special federal Multi-District Litigation court in Illinois.

In new information added to the site, Bayer spokesperson MarijaMandic admits that the company also faces as many as 13 proposedYaz class action claims in Canada.

According to Bayer's most recent financial statements uncovered byDrugRisk, the company has set aside as much as $750 million forYaz settlements in the United States, resolving as many as 3,500cases so far at an average of nearly $214,000 per case.Anyone who suffered a blood clot, DVT, stroke or PulmonaryEmbolism after taking Yaz or Yasmin is urged to contact the DrugRisk Resource Center or speak with a lawyer about their legaloptions.

However, the Drug Risk Resource Center cautions that victimsshould seek a lawyer with experience in defective drug litigation,and only recommends lawyers and law firms who have already settledYaz lawsuits.

BURLEY STABILIZATION: Faces Tobacco Farmers' Class Action Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that tobacco farmers sued theBurley Stabilization Corp. in a federal class action, claiming itowes millions of dollars from the record 1982 tobacco crop, andincome and interest it made by not paying the (discontinued)federal tobacco support money.

CAMBREX CORP: Remaining Lorazepam Class Suit Pending in D.C.------------------------------------------------------------The remaining lawsuit related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate remainspending in the District of Columbia, according to CambrexCorporation's February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

In 1998, Cambrex Corporation and a subsidiary were named asdefendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and GymaLaboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by theFederal Trade Commission in the United States District Court forthe District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Lawsuits werealso commenced by several State Attorneys General and class actioncomplaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. Thelawsuits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Actarising from exclusive license agreements between the Company andMylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients ("APIs")(Lorazepam and Clorazepate).

All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four healthcare insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court enteredjudgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex inthe total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally,and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in theamount of $16,709,000. In addition, at the time, the DistrictCourt ruled that the defendants were subject to a total ofapproximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The case iscurrently pending before the District Court following a January2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing related towhether the court has jurisdiction over certain self-fundedcustomer plaintiffs is ongoing.

In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for arelease and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities inrelated litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam andClorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to theongoing matter. Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten bya third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000. Inthe event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expectsany payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under theindemnity.

Cambrex Corporation -- http://www.cambrex.com/-- is an innovative life sciences company providing products, services andtechnologies to accelerate the development and commercializationof small molecule therapeutics. The Company is headquartered EastRutherford, New Jersey.

The decision in Brown v. Canada (A.G.), 2013 ONCA 18 concerns aproposed class action against the federal government, whichalleges that it wrongfully delegated its duties in respect ofAboriginal persons by entering into an agreement (the "1965Agreement") that enabled the province of Ontario to placethousands of Aboriginal children in non-aboriginal foster care oradoptive homes. The plaintiffs alleged that these children weredeprived of their Aboriginal identity, and alleged liability basedon honour of the Crown, "identity genocide", breach of Aboriginalrights, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

At the certification motion, the motion judge found the pleadingsfailed to disclose a cause of action as required under s. 5(1)(a)of the CPA. However, despite holding that the fiduciary duty andnegligence claims did not support a cause of action based on thefederal Crown's entry into the 1965 Agreement -- which was theclaim pleaded by the plaintiffs -- the motion judge went on tofind that these claims could potentially support a cause of actionbased on the Crown's failure to prevent the Aboriginal childrenfrom losing their Aboriginal identity. Accordingly, upon findingthat the proposed class action satisfied the remaining criteriaunder s. 5(1) of the CPA, the motion judge granted certificationon the condition that the plaintiffs deliver an amended statementof claim.

The motion judge's decision was set aside by the OntarioDivisional Court. In a brief endorsement, it found that hepredetermined that a cause of action would be disclosed if thepleadings were amended in accordance with his reasons, and erredby not adjourning the certification motion to await an amendedstatement of claim which could be challenged anew by the Crown.Remarkably, the Court also ordered that the adjournedcertification motion be heard by a different motion judge once anamended pleading was delivered, despite the fact that s. 34 of theCPA requires that "[t]he same judge shall hear all motions beforethe trial of the common issues" unless that judge "becomesunavailable for any reason".

In Brown, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the DivisionalCourt's order. However, rather than doing so through anendorsement, the Court chose to deliver comprehensive reasons thatemphasize the centrality of the s. 5(1)(a) requirement to thecertification analysis. According to Rosenberg J.A.:

. . . [I]dentification of a cause of action is fundamental. It isimpossible for the defendant to meaningfully respond to anapplication for certification without knowing the cause of action.The definition of the class and the identification of the commonissues depend upon the nature of the cause of action. . . . It isnot possible to know whether an action can be appropriatelyprosecuted as a class action without identifying the fundamentalissue of whether or not there is a cause of action. It is noanswer that the defendant can bring a motion to decertify theaction under s. 10 if the action should never have been certifiedin the first place.

. . . [C]ertifying a class action in the absence of a statement ofclaim that discloses viable causes of action is not casemanagement. Even the power to amend other aspects of the claim,such as the proposed common issues, should be exercised withcaution and restraint: McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Co.,2012 ONCA 445, 111 O.R. (3d) 745, at para. 144. . . . Thedefendant cannot respond to the evidence-based criteria in theabstract without knowing the cause of action. [emphasis added](paras. 44-45)

These comments reflect a growing trend towards a more rigorousreview of certification motions by Ontario appellate courts. Thenotion that it is appropriate to certify a class action that failsto satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria, on the basisthat it may simply be "decertified" should problems arise down theroad, no longer represents the prevailing approach, as is evidentfrom other recent certification dismissals such as McCracken v.Canadian National Railway Company, 2012 ONCA 445 and Williams v.Canon Canada Inc., 2012 ONSC 3692 (Div. Ct.). In the wake oflengthy common issues trials such as Andersen v. St. Jude Medical,Inc., 2012 ONSC 3660, Ontario courts have become sensitive to theimpact that poorly conceived class actions can have upondefendants and the judicial system. The result is a renewedemphasis upon the plaintiff's statutory burden at certification.

Brown is also notable for the Court of Appeal's decision toprevent the motion judge from presiding over the adjournedcertification motion. Rosenberg J.A. found the motion judge'spredetermination that an amended statement of claim would satisfys. 5(1)(a) created a reasonable apprehension of bias, whichrendered him "unavailable" to hear the motion pursuant to s. 34(2)of the CPA:

Mr. Kain said "While it was not always the case, I think it cannow safely be said that judges cannot sit in appeal of their owndecisions: see e.g., Law Society of Upper Canada v. French, [1975]2 S.C.R. 767, at pp. 782-83, per Spence J., at p. 775, per DicksonC.J.C., dissenting. In my view, a reasonable interpretation ofthe reasons of the case management judge is that he had determinedthat viable causes of action existed as he framed them. . . .[T]hecauses of action as framed by the case management judge are soradically different from the way they were pleaded in thestatement of claim that I do not think it can be safely said thatthe respondent had an adequate opportunity to respond. To now givethe respondent that opportunity before the same judge would, asthe Divisional Court found, result in the case management judgesitting in review of his own decision. (para. 53)"

In light of Brown, motion judges should be wary of taking anoverly interventionist approach on certification.

The lawsuits were filed in superior courts in Snohomish and Kingcounties on behalf of all neighbors within a four-mile radius ofthe facilities. The lawsuits are seeking compensation for theneighbors and also demanding that Cedar Grove change how itoperates and eliminates odors.

Last month, two other lawsuits were filed in district courts inSnohomish and King counties representing 350 people who livearound Cedar Grove's facilities also seeking compensation for whatwas described as the rotting garbage stench.

The company is paid to take yard and food waste from haulingcompanies around Snohomish County and parts of King County. Itturns the waste into compost for use in gardens. It also collectsfood waste from restaurants. The Everett plant opened in 2004.

Neighbors have complained for several years of a rotting-garbagestench they believe comes from the sites, especially during warmermonths.

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is conducting a study of odors inthe Snohomish River delta, where the composting plant is located.

CHINA GREEN: Remaining Claims Pending in Securities Class Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 remains pending in the securities classaction lawsuit against China Green Agriculture, Inc., according tothe Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December31, 2012.

On October 15, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against theCompany and certain of its current and former officers in theUnited States District Court for the District of Nevada (the"Nevada Federal Court") on behalf of purchasers of the Company'scommon stock between November 12, 2009, and September 1, 2010.The current version of the complaint alleges that the Company andcertain of its current and former officers and directors violatedSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, by making material misstatements and omissions in theCompany's financial statements, securities offering documents, andrelated disclosures during the class period. On October 7, 2011,the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and tostrike portions of it.

On November 2, 2012, the Nevada Federal Court issued an orderdismissing the claims for violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and15 of the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants anddismissing certain individual defendants from the complaint andallowing the claims for violations of section 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to continue with respect tothe Company and certain of the individual defendants. The NevadaFederal Court also denied the defendants' motion to strike.

China Green Agriculture, Inc. is engaged in the research,development, production and sale of various types of fertilizersand agricultural products in the People's Republic of China thoughits wholly-owned Chinese subsidiaries, Jinong, Jintai, Yuxing,Gufeng. Its primary business is fertilizer products, specificallyhumic acid-based compound fertilizer produced through Jinong andcompound fertilizer, blended fertilizer, organic compoundfertilizer, slow-release fertilizers, highly-concentrated water-soluble fertilizers and mixed organic-inorganic compoundfertilizer produced through Gufeng. In addition, through Jintaiand Yuxing, the Company develops and produces agriculturalproducts, such as top-grade fruits, vegetables, flowers andcolored seedlings.

COMMONWEALTH BANK: Piper Files SCDO Suit Within Limitation Period-----------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers Weekly reports that time is running out for firms to makethe big banks pay for their role in investor losses during theglobal financial crisis (GFC), with Piper Alderman launching aclass action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) justinside the limitation period.

Pipers filed an action in the Federal Court on February 7 thataims to recoup a portion of AUD140 million in investments wipedout by the GFC, which were purchased from CBA between 2006 and2007. The firm is alleging that CBA breached its obligations as afinancial services licensee to act honestly and fairly by notfully disclosing the risks associated with the volatile financialproducts known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations(SCDOs).

The limitation period for damages under Section 82 of theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010 is six years "after the day onwhich the cause of action that relates to the conduct accrued".In the CBA case, this could be interpreted as either the dateinvestors purchased the SCDOs or when losses were incurred,according to Amanda Banton, the Piper Alderman partner leading theclass action.

This ambiguity prompted Pipers to run an open class action topreserve the claim for investors who may come forward at a laterdate.

"We're running the class action conservatively as these sorts ofactions are starting to get time barred," she said. "In somecases, potential claimants may have already lost their rights."

The lead applicants in this action are Clurname Pty Ltd andGloucester Shire Council, which are looking to recover losses onthree SCDO investments plus damages, including lost interest.

"All the people we've had contact with wouldn't have bought theproduct if they knew that a certain number of defaults would meantheir capital would be wiped out," Ms. Banton said.

A litigation funder is providing financial backing but Piperswould not disclose the funder's name.

In September last year, Pipers won a landmark class action againstLehman Brothers Australia, which was found to have breached itsfiduciary duties by selling risky, complex financial derivativesthat went sour during the GFC. The firm also successfullyrecouped millions in losses for 12 NSW local councils in Novemberafter the Federal Court found ratings agency Standard & Poorfailed in its duty of care to investors by assigning a AAA ratingto "grotesquely complicated" and risky synthetic derivatives.

DIRECTSAT USA: 7th Circuit Affirms Class Action Decertification---------------------------------------------------------------On February 4, 2013 in Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC a SeventhCircuit panel unanimously affirmed a Wisconsin District Courtjudge's decision to decertify a large off-the-clock overtime classaction. Judge Richard Posner wrote the opinion affirming thedecertification and, in his inimitable style, he provides an easy-to-read dissertation on the limits of the class action device,proper standards for class certification, and the requirement forthe plaintiff to propose a manageable trial plan if he wants toavoid having his class decertified. This case is chock full ofnotable points.

The Underlying Facts of the Proceedings

The facts are fairly simple. The plaintiffs obtained conditionalclass certification under the FLSA and class certification underRule 23 for a class of 2341 satellite techs ("cable guys" forsatellite) who were paid a fixed amount per each satellite servicecall they performed. The suit alleged that management requiredthe satellite techs to perform work that was not compensated inthe piece rate, and required them to work more than 40 hours perweek without payment of overtime. The plaintiffs contended thatDirectSat pressured them to report less than all their actual worktime in order for DirectSat to avoid paying overtime. It isunclear from the opinion, but it does not appear that plaintiffsargued that when they reported more than 40 hours in a week, theystill received no overtime. Rather, it appears they claim thatworkers were systematically pressured to report less than all oftheir time.

It is odd that this case ever got certified in the first place,but it eventually dawned on the district court that there wouldlikely be significant individualized issues to resolve at trial,so the court asked the plaintiffs to propose a trial plan. Theplaintiffs repeatedly resisted, but then finally proposed to provethe case by using 42 "representative witnesses" but they failed toexplain how these witnesses would be selected, what would makethem representative, and how would they address individualizedissues. As such, the district court decertified the action andthe plaintiffs ultimately appealed the decision.The Seventh Circuit's Decision to Affirm the Decertification

In affirming the decertification, Judge Posner made all of thefollowing trenchant observations:

(1) Despite the differences between the FLSA and Rule 23procedures for collective and class actions, Judge Posner holdsthat, at bottom, "there isn't a good reason to have differentstandards for the certification of the two different types ofaction, and the case law has largely merged the standards. . . .And so we can, with no distortion of our analysis, treat theentire set of suits before us as if it were a single classaction." This supports the notion that the requirement ofpredominance of common issues applies the same under the FLSA andRule 23.

(2) To determine damages would have required 2341 separateevidentiary hearings, "which might swamp the Western District ofWisconsin with its two district judges." The reason was that thesatellite tech job was not one with 8-5 hours where the employeeswere alleged to have worked without a lunch break, thus working 45hours per week but being paid for 40. Rather, the employees werepaid on a piece rate which raised big individualized issues as tothe time they spent working. To wit:

"[S]ince workers differ in their effort and efficiency--that some,maybe many, of the technicians may not work more than 40 hours aweek and may even work fewer hours; others may work more than 40hours a week. Variance would also result from differenttechnicians' doing different tasks, since it's contended that theemployer told them not to report time spent on some of thosetasks, though -- further complicating the problem of proof -- someof them reported that time anyway."

As such, there were significant individualized issues whetheremployees really worked more than 40 hours and whether the pay thereceived covered all the time they actually worked, among otherissues.

(3) The plaintiffs purported solution to this was to select asample of 42 class members, but Plaintiffs were unable to explainhow the 42 were selected, "whether for example they werevolunteers, or perhaps selected by class counsel after extensiveinterviews and hand-picked to magnify the damages sought by theclass." There was no showing at all made that they used samplingmethods used in statistical analysis, such as random sampling.

(4) Judge Posner went further, however, and said that even byhappenstance if the average OT worked by the 42 matched preciselythe average of the class, there still would be issues precludingclass certification because the distribution among class memberswould not be at all uniform:

"No one thinks there was such uniformity. And if for example theaverage number of overtime hours per class member per week was 5,then awarding 5 x 1.5 x hourly wage to a class member who had only1 hour of overtime would confer a windfall on him, while awardingthe same amount of damages to a class member who had 10 hours ofovertime would (assuming the same hourly wage) undercompensate himby half. The differences would not be trivial, because thetechnicians' average hourly rate was about $15."

Judge Posner then goes on to provide all the different variationsthat arise among piece rate workers that could lead to widevariations in both liability and damages for both minimum wage andovertime liability.

(5) Judge Posner also notes that the class members have no recordswhatsoever of the actual time they worked: "they are not likelawyers, who record every bit of work they do for a client, in6-minute segments." Although individuals would be free to provetheir time worked from memory or estimations that would allow atrier of fact to draw a just and reasonable inference of the timethey worked, an inference of a "small, unrepresentative sample"cannot show the "work time of thousands of workers."

(6) Plaintiffs were unable to explain how liability could beestablished collectively and provided no method to determineindividual damages. Judge Posner sagely noted that Plaintiffsmust have thought the case would just settle so they did not needto worry about trial procedure (the classic Underpants Gnomesproblem), but that was no excuse for lacking a workable trialplan:

"[Plaintiffs' counsel] must think that like most class actionsuits this one would not be tried--that if we ordered a class orclasses certified, DirectSat would settle. That may be arealistic conjecture, but class counsel cannot be permitted toforce settlement by refusing to agree to a reasonable method oftrial should settlement negotiations fail. Essentially they askedthe district judge to embark on a shapeless, freewheeling trialthat would combine liability and damages and would be virtuallyevidence-free so far as damages were concerned."

Broader Implications of the Decision Concerning Class Certification

What Judge Posner does not say, but which seems evident from thepoints he makes, is that these same issues should exist at theinitial class certification determination. What led this districtcourt to certify the class in the first place given the plaintiffscomplete lack of scientific basis for their purported"representative evidence"? Wouldn't the points about substantialindividualized differences among workers under a piece rate systemhave been evident at class certification? Judge Posner does notexpressly comment. Despite his silence, this case shoulddefinitely be worth citing in any sort of off-the-clock case toexplain to a court why a class trial will prove unworkable.

E.I. DU PONT: Defends Suits Alleging Drinking Water Contamination-----------------------------------------------------------------E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company continues to defend itselfagainst lawsuits alleging contamination of drinking water,according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, wasfiled in West Virginia state court alleging that residents livingnear the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt)in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid theplaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made apayment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund acommunity health project. The Company funded a series of healthstudies which were completed in October 2012 by an independentscience panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studieswere conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluateavailable scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOAand human disease.

A panel of three medical experts will determine an appropriatemedical monitoring protocol, if any, as a result of thesefindings. If a medical monitoring protocol for any of thesediseases is defined, DuPont is required to fund a medicalmonitoring program to pay for such medical testing. Plaintiffsmay pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for thosehuman diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined aprobable link exists. In January 2012, the Company put $1 millionin an escrow account as required by the settlement agreement.Under the settlement agreement, the Company's total obligation topay for medical monitoring cannot exceed $235 million. Inaddition, the Company must continue to provide water treatmentdesigned to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area waterdistricts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA),and private well users.

An Ohio action brought by the LHWA is ongoing. In addition togeneral claims of PFOA contamination of drinking water, the actionclaims "imminent and substantial endangerment to health and or theenvironment" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). DuPont denies these claims and is defending itselfvigorously.

At December 31, 2012, twenty-five lawsuits alleging personalinjury and one lawsuit alleging wrongful death from exposure toPFOA in drinking water are pending in federal court in Ohio andWest Virginia. DuPont denies the allegations in these lawsuitsand is defending itself vigorously.

While DuPont believes that it is reasonably possible that it couldincur losses related to PFOA matters in addition to those pendingmatters for which it has established accruals, a range of suchlosses, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (NYSE: DD), commonly referredto as DuPont, is an American chemical company founded in July1802. In the 20th century, DuPont developed many polymers such asVespel, neoprene, nylon, Corian, Teflon, Mylar, Kevlar, Zemdrain,M5 fiber, Nomex, Tyvek, Sorona and Lycra. DuPont developed Freon(chlorofluorocarbons) for the refrigerant industry, and later moreenvironmentally friendly refrigerants. It developed syntheticpigments and paints including ChromaFlair.

On December 6, 2012, Epoch, The Toronto-Dominion Bank ("TD") andEmpire Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiaryof TD, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "MergerAgreement"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction orwaiver of certain conditions, Merger Sub will be merged with andinto Epoch, with Epoch surviving the merger as a wholly ownedsubsidiary of TD (the "Merger"). The Merger Agreement wasunanimously approved by Epoch's Board of Directors and is expectedto be completed during the first half of calendar year 2013.

Shortly after the announcement of the proposed transaction, fivepurported class action complaints were filed by purportedshareholders of Epoch against Epoch, the individual directors ofEpoch, and TD. One action was filed in the Supreme Court of theState of New York, County of New York, two were filed in theDelaware Court of Chancery, a fourth was filed in the SupremeCourt of the State of New York, County of Nassau, and a fifth wasfiled in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York.

Specifically, on December 11, 2012, a purported shareholder ofEpoch filed an action in the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork, County of New York, captioned Cindy Goldman TTEE GSS 508Trust Dated May 16, 2008 v. Epoch Holding Corporation, et al. (the"Goldman Action"). The complaint names as defendants alldirectors of Epoch, Epoch, and TD. The plaintiff alleges that thedirectors of Epoch breached their fiduciary duties by approvingthe proposed transaction with TD, and that TD aided and abettedthose alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Specifically, thelawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Merger Agreement wasreached through an unfair process that benefitted the personal andfinancial positions of the directors of Epoch at the expense ofthe shareholders of Epoch, that the Merger Consideration isinadequate, and that the deal protection devices in the MergerAgreement have precluded other bidders from making competingoffers for Epoch. The plaintiff seeks, among other things,injunctive relief and attorneys' fees concerning the allegedbreaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants fromconsummating the merger. On January 8, 2013, Epoch and itsdirectors (the "Epoch Defendants") filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint or in the alternative to stay the action pendingresolution of parallel proceedings in Delaware. The partiesthereafter stipulated and the Court ordered that the action bestayed pending the resolution of the related Delaware Action andthe Katcher Action described herein.

On December 21, 2012, another purported shareholder of Epoch filedan action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Reich v.Epoch Holding Corporation, et al (the "Reich Action"). Like theGoldman Action, this action alleges that the directors of Epochbreached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposedtransaction with TD, and that both TD and Merger Sub aided andabetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The ReichAction seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and attorneys'fees concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and toprohibit the defendants from consummating the merger. The lawsuitnames as defendants all directors of Epoch, Epoch, TD, and MergerSub. On December 26, 2012, another purported shareholder actionwas filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hodgson v.Epoch Holding Corporation, et al (the "Hodgson Action"). TheHodgson Action also brings breach of fiduciary duty claims againstthe directors of Epoch, and aiding and abetting claims againstEpoch, TD, and Merger Sub, seeking similar relief.

The Epoch Defendants answered the complaint in the Reich Action onDecember 28, 2012. On January 3, 2013, the Court of Chanceryentered an order consolidating the Reich and Hodgson Actions as Inre Epoch Holding Corporation Stockholder Litigation (the "DelawareAction") and appointed lead counsel for the consolidated action.On January 18, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and proposedorder to govern the confidential treatment of discovery materials,which the court granted on January 29, 2013. On January 18, 2013,the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave to amend theircomplaint, which the Court granted on January 25, 2013. OnJanuary 21, 2013, the parties filed a proposed stipulatedscheduling order to govern discovery and any motions forpreliminary injunction that the plaintiffs may file, which theCourt granted on January 28, 2013. The plaintiffs filed theiramended class action complaint on January 25, 2013, which addedclaims that the director defendants breached their duty ofdisclosure by omitting or misstating material information inEpoch's preliminary proxy statement. On February 6, 2013, theEpoch Defendants answered the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The third-filed action was brought in the Supreme Court of theState of New York, County of Nassau, on December 24, 2012,captioned Katcher v. Epoch Holding Corporation, et al. (the"Katcher Action"). The plaintiffs brought claims similar to thoseraised in the Goldman Action and Delaware Action against Epoch,the members of Epoch's board, and TD, and seek declaratory andinjunctive relief. The plaintiffs claim that Epoch's directorsbreached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering intothe proposed transaction with TD, and that TD and Epoch aided andabetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On January 16, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a notice of motionto dismiss the complaint or stay the action pending the resolutionof the parallel Delaware Action (the "Motion to Dismiss/Stay").The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2013,adding allegations that Epoch's directors breached their duty ofdisclosure by omitting or misstating material information inEpoch's preliminary proxy statement. The plaintiffs also filed amotion on order to show cause providing for expedited discovery(the "Motion for Expedited Discovery") on January 23, 2013. Theplaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the Motion toDismiss/Stay on January 25, 2013.

On January 29, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a cross-motion tostay discovery, and a brief in support of that cross-motion and inopposition to the plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery. OnJanuary 30, 2013, the Epoch Defendants filed a reply brief infurther support of their Motion to Dismiss/Stay. On February 3,2013, the plaintiffs moved by order to show cause to preliminarilyenjoin defendants from refusing to respond to their discoverydemands absent a stay of the action or an order of the court (the"February 3rd Motion"). On February 4, 2013, the court set ahearing date of February 13, 2013, to hear the plaintiffs'February 3rd Motion, and ordered that pending the hearing anddetermination of the February 3rd Motion, and further order of thecourt, the defendants must comply with the plaintiffs' discoveryrequests. Both the Epoch Defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Stay andthe plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Discovery remain pendingbefore the court.

On January 24, 2013, another purported shareholder of Epoch fileda similar action in the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York, captioned Wilks v. Priest, et al.The defendants include Epoch, the members of its board, TD, andMerger Sub. The plaintiff brought a claim under Section 14(a) ofthe Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder regardingthe disclosures in Epoch's preliminary proxy. The plaintiff alsobrought a breach of fiduciary duty claim and a breach of duty ofdisclosure claim against the Epoch directors, and an aiding andabetting claim against TD and Merger Sub. The plaintiff seeks,among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief and, if theproposed transaction is consummated, rescission of the transactionor rescissory damages.

Epoch and its board of directors believe these claims are entirelywithout merit, and intend to vigorously defend against theseactions.

Julie Farley, a manager at a Family Dollar Store in Fruita,Colorado from October 2009 until March 2011, filed the classaction on behalf of all store managers employed at the defendants'Colorado stores since February 7, 2007. Ms. Farley complained shedid not receive overtime pay when she worked more than 12 hoursper day or 40 hours per week, in violation of the Colorado WageClaim Act, and in breach of an implied unilateral contract betweenher and the defendants that required the defendants to pay her inaccordance with state wage and hour laws.

Family Dollar filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims for theperiod prior to February 7, 2009, because the plaintiff's claimsare subject to a three-year statute of limitations period.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Watanabewho issued a Recommendation on October 3, 2012. In his opinion,Magistrate Judge Watanabe explained that actions brought underimplied contracts -- meaning contracts based on conduct ratherthan express terms -- were not subject to the longer statute oflimitations period. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Watanabegranted Family Dollar's motion to dismiss.

Ms. Farley filed a timely objection.

On February 11, 2013, Judge Jackson affirmed and adoptedMagistrate Judge Watanabe's recommendation and granted FamilyDollar's Motion to Dismiss. A copy of Judge Jackson's Order isavailable at http://is.gd/JnhQSQfrom Leagle.com.

FIFTH THIRD: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest-------------------------------------------------------Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Fifth Third BankNA on Feb. 12 was hit with a proposed class action in Floridafederal court accusing it of charging unlawfully excessiveinterest rates on short-term lines of credit given to its checkingaccount customers.

According to plaintiffs Lori and Daniel Laskaris, Fifth Third hadunfairly preyed upon desperate customers with its Early Accessprogram credit lines, charging "usurious" interest rates -- insome cases, in excess of 1,000 percent per year once annualized --and misleading customers about the true rate.

FREDDIE MAC: Barrow County Joins Unpaid Transfer Tax Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------------Stanley Dunlap, writing for Barrow County News, reports that theBarrow county will also join a 15 state class action lawsuit asthey attempt to recover unpaid transfer taxes from lenders such asFreddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The firms that would handle thelawsuit would only be paid if money is recovered. If a settlementis made in the initial stages then the law firms would receive 25percent of the fees and if the case takes longer then it would be33 percent.

The lawsuit was described as a "win-win for the county" by CountyAttorney Angie Davis.

"This national team has retained a national consultant that isworking to create calculations for our county as well as othersthat are a (part) of this lawsuit," she said.

The class action lawsuit was filed by the San Francisco laborlawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. The case, filed onFebruary 6, 2013, alleges that Genex Holdings Inc d/b/a GenexServices, Inc. ("Genex") misclassified the Field Nurse CaseManagers as exempt from overtime pay and as a result, failed toprovide overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and precisewage statements as required by California law. The lawsuitentitled, Davis v. Genex Holdings Inc d/b/a Genex Services, Inc.,Case No. 113CV240830 is currently pending in the Santa ClaraCounty Superior Court for the State of California.

The class action complaint, which can be read here, alleges thatthe Plaintiff, who worked as a Field Nurse Case Manager, mostlyengaged in non-exempt tasks throughout her workday, includingreviewing her client's pre-injury position, making appointmentswith the client's doctors, communicating in-person and bytelephone with her clients, employers, medical providers,attorneys, insurance carriers and claims adjustors. The Complaintfurther alleges that the reason the Plaintiff and other FieldNurse Case Managers should be receiving overtime pay is becausethese employees use their RN training to coordinate care, act asintermediaries between patients, adjustors, and doctors andoperate in a framework in "which these employees do not exerciseultimate decision making power."

Managing partner, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated "Large corporationsoften implement company wide policies to classify a certain jobtitle as exempt from overtime pay in order to get the benefit ofall their employees' work while only paying them for some of theirwork."

This argument is not new to the attorneys at Blumenthal,Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. The California labor law attorneysoriginally filed another class action in April of 2011 on behalfof Field Nurse Case Managers working for a different company,Coventry Healthcare, alleging that these employees were alsoshorted overtime pay as a result of being classified as salariedemployees. The Judge in that case has tentatively certified thefollowing class: All those men and women employed by [CoventryHealth] in California who worked as a Field Case Manager at anytime from April 7, 2007 to May 1, 2012. The Coventry class actionentitled Rieve v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., Case No. SA CV 11-1032 DOC9MLGx) is currently pending before the Honorable JudgeDavid O. Carter in United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California.

The unpaid wage attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmikdedicate their practice to helping people who have been wrongfullyclassified as salaried employees exempt from receiving overtimepay and other claims including violation of California labor laws.

HOBART SERV: Class Cert. Unnecessary in PAGA Actions in Fed. Court------------------------------------------------------------------According to John P. Zaimes of Mayer Brown, the California SupremeCourt held in Arias v. Superior Court that a plaintiff may bring arepresentative action on behalf of himself and other employees torecover civil penalties under California's Private AttorneyGeneral Act ("PAGA") without meeting California's class-certification requirements. The court reasoned that, unlike aclass action, where the plaintiff is suing on behalf of individualemployees, a PAGA plaintiff steps into the shoes of state labor-law enforcement agencies. While that holding governs Californiastate courts, the federal district courts have been split as towhether plaintiffs bringing PAGA claims in federal court must seekclass certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

On January 14, 2013, Judge Gutierrez of the Central District ofCalifornia held that PAGA plaintiffs need not bother with classcertification in federal court. In Alcantar v. Hobart Serv. (No.5:11-cv-1600-PSG-SP), the plaintiff had filed a class action and aPAGA action alleging overtime, meal-period, and other wage-and-hour violations. The court denied class certification and grantedin part defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendantslater filed a motion in limine, asserting that the plaintiff couldno longer proceed with his PAGA claim because plaintiffs whocannot meet Rule 23's class-certification requirements lackstanding to represent the rights and interests of third parties.The district court denied the motion, holding that although aclass action allows individuals to seek financial remuneration toredress personal injuries, a PAGA action is an enforcement actionbrought on behalf of the state labor agencies to penalizenoncompliant employers, making class certification unnecessary.

The Alcantar court also rejected defendants' argument that thePAGA claims could not be tried on a representative basis withoutviolating defendants' due process rights. Among other things, thedefendants argued that they should have the right to call eachemployee to the stand as they would in defending a claim underCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Alcantar courtdisagreed, holding that, "unlike claims under the UCL, whichrequire an individualized determination of the particularrestitution due to each plaintiff, PAGA claims require only ashowing that a Labor Code violation has occurred."

Finally, the Alcantar court rejected the defendants' remainingargument that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes forbids the plaintifffrom calculating the amount of PAGA penalties owed solely by usingestimates derived from representative testimony and statistics.The district court disagreed, noting that the Dukes Court hadanalyzed the permissibility of "Trial by Formula" in the specificcontext of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while both the NinthCircuit and California courts have permitted awards for CaliforniaLabor Code violations based on a representative sampling of classmembers. (Note: The issue of use of representative testimony andstatistical evidence at trial in wage and hour class actionlawsuits is pending before the California Supreme Court in Duranv. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n., No. S200823.)

Alcantar may give new encouragement to the plaintiffs' bar intheir pursuit of PAGA claims. Under its approach, defendants inPAGA cases are deprived not only of the protections of Rule 23,but also the due process right to present individualized defensesto each employee's claim. Whether other district courts willfollow Alcantar's lead, or instead follow the decisions of othercourts that (in our view) are more consistent with Rule 23 and dueprocess -- and how the federal appellate courts will eventuallysettle this issue -- remains to be seen. In the meantime,defendants may be able to distinguish the Alcantar court'sreasoning by showing that their cases involve fact patterns whereproof of a statutory violation will require highly individualized,fact-sensitive mini trials.

HOLOGIC INC: Has Yet to File Delaware Suit Settlement Documents---------------------------------------------------------------Hologic, Inc. has yet to file settlement documents and obtaincourt approval of the settlement resolving a consolidated merger-related lawsuit in Delaware, according to the Company's February7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended December 29, 2012.

In connection with Hologic, Inc.'s acquisition of Gen-ProbeIncorporated on August 1, 2012, Hologic completed a privateplacement of $1.0 billion aggregate principal amount of 6.25%senior notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes"). The Senior Notes arefully and unconditionally and jointly and severally guaranteed byHologic, Inc. ("Issuer") and certain of its domestic subsidiaries,including those acquired in its acquisition of Gen-Probe.

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the Company, Gen-Probe, and Gen-Probe's board of directors. These include: (1)Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-ProbeIncorporated, et al. (Superior Court of the State of Californiafor the County of San Diego); (2) Timothy Coyne v. Gen-ProbeIncorporated, et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery); and (3) DouglasR. Klein v. John W. Brown, et al. (Delaware Chancery Court). Thetwo Delaware actions have been consolidated into a single actiontitled: In re: Gen-Probe Shareholders Litigation. The lawsuitswere filed after the announcement of the Company's acquisition ofGen-Probe on April 30, 2012, as putative stockholder classactions. Each of the actions assert similar claims alleging thatGen-Probe's board of directors failed to adequately discharge itsfiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to adequately valueGen-Probe's shares and ensure that Gen-Probe's shareholdersreceived adequate consideration in the Company's acquisition ofGen-Probe, that the acquisition was the product of a flawed salesprocess, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breachof fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs demand, among other things, apreliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the Company'sacquisition of Gen-Probe and rescinding the transaction or anypart thereof that has been implemented. On May 24, 2012, theplaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an amended complaint,adding allegations that the disclosures in Gen-Probe's preliminaryproxy statement were inadequate. The defendants in the Delawareaction answered the complaint on June 4, 2012.

On July 18, 2012, the parties in the Delaware action entered intoa memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement ofthe litigation. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon,among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation ofsettlement, consummation of the merger, and final approval of theproposed settlement by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On July 9, 2012, the plaintiffs in the California action filed amotion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On July 12,2012, the California Superior Court entered an order dismissingthe California complaint without prejudice.

IMPRELIS: Accord in Product Liability Suit Gets Initial Approval----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvaniagranted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in IN RE:IMPRELIS HERBICIDE MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTSLIABILITY LITIGATION, No. 11-md-02284.

The settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, andadequate, and within the range of reasonableness.

The Court conditionally certified these nationwide classes:

Property Owner Class (Class 1): All persons or entities who (a) own or owned property in the United States to which Imprelis was applied from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011, or (b) own or owned property in the United States adjacent to property to which Imprelis was applied from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011 and whose trees show damage from Imprelis on or before the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order ("Adjacent Property Owner"). Excluded from Class 1 are (1) any Judges to whom this Action is assigned and any members of their immediate families and (2) any property owners whose properties were used for the testing of Imprelis or developmental formulations containing the same active ingredient.

Applicator Class (Class 2): All persons or entities that, from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011, purchased Imprelis (and/or received Imprelis directly or indirectly from a purchaser) and applied it to property in the United States as part of their normal business, other than property that they own or owned ("Applicators"). Excluded from Class 2 are any Judges to whom this Action is assigned and any members of their immediate family.

Golf Courses and Other Self Applicators Class (Class 3): All persons or entities that, from August 31, 2010 through August 21, 2011, purchased Imprelis (and/or received Imprelis directly or indirectly from a purchaser) and applied it to properties in the United States that they own or owned ("Self Applicators"). Excluded from Class 3 are any Judges to whom this Action is assigned and any members of their immediate family.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on September 27, 2013, at2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10B to determine whether the Settlement isfair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved.

Not later than March 25, 2013, the Claims Administrator will:

(a) publish both the Publication and Long Form Notices on a settlement Web site, which will be made available through a link on the Plaintiffs' Counsel's Web sites, and will contain copies of the Settlement Notices, the fully executed Settlement Agreement, and relevant Court Orders and filings (including the Fee Application). The Settlement Notices will direct recipients to the location of the settlement Web site, which will remain active through December 1, 2013.

(b) publish the Publication Notice, attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit 9, in certain publications.

(c) place local advertisements on television in the 46 Designated Market Areas most seriously impacted by Imprelis.

(d) mail the Long Form Notices via First Class Mail to all Settlement Class Members who have submitted their information to the Imprelis Claims Resolution Process.

Any Class Member who wishes to opt out of the Class must do so inwriting by mailing a request for exclusion to the ClaimsAdministrator. Any such request must be postmarked no later thanJune 28, 2013.

The parties must file a Motion for Final Approval of theSettlement and any Fee and Expense Application no later thanAugust 7, 2013.

Any Class Member who objects to the fairness, reasonableness, oradequacy of the proposed Settlement, including the proposed Feeand Expense Award must file its objection with the Clerk of Courtand be received by the Parties' counsel no later than August 21,2013.

Any reply papers or other responses the parties wish to file inresponse to Class Member objections must be filed with the Courtno later than September 4, 2013.

A copy of District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter's February 12, 2013Order is available at http://is.gd/aRMav1from Leagle.com.

INTL FCSTONE: To Seek OK of Securities Suit Accord Before July---------------------------------------------------------------INTL FCStone Inc. disclosed in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended December 31, 2012, that the terms of a settlementresolving a securities lawsuit filed against a subsidiary areexpected to be presented to the court for approval before July2013.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone") and certain of its officers werenamed as defendants in an action filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Missouri in July 2008.A consolidated amended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed inSeptember 2009. As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to bebrought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStonecommon stock between November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009.The CAC seeks to hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) andSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concernsdisclosures included in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosuresregarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising fromunprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certaindisclosures beginning on November 3, 2008, related to losses itexpected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy tradingaccount. FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss theaction.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle tosettle this matter during May 2012. The proposed settlement wouldbe at no cost to the Company after consideration of insurance, andis subject to approval by the court. The terms of the settlementare expected to be presented to the court for approval before July2013.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services groupfocused on domestic and select international markets. TheCompany's services include comprehensive risk management advisoryservices for commercial customers; execution of listed futures andoptions on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range ofcommodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and basemetals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;Debtors origination and asset management. During the quarterended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name fromInternational Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,following approval of the name change by the Company'sstockholders. INTL's businesses, which include the commoditiesadvisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., servemore than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countriesthrough a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.

INTL FCSTONE: To Seek Okay of Shareholder Suit Deal Before July---------------------------------------------------------------INTL FCStone Inc. said in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended December 31, 2012, that the terms of its subsidiary'ssettlement of a consolidated shareholder lawsuit are expected tobe presented to the court for approval before July 2013.

In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed againstFCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone") and certain directors of FCStonein the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri, alleging breachesof fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjustenrichment. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in May2009 to add claims based upon the losses sustained by FCStonearising out of a customer energy trading account. In July 2009,the same plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the existingcase to add a purported class action claim on behalf of theholders of FCStone common stock.

In July 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint wasfiled against FCStone and its directors, as well as the Company inthe Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The complaint allegedthat FCStone and its directors breached their fiduciary duties byfailing to maximize stockholder value in connection with thecontemplated acquisition of FCStone by the Company. Thiscomplaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint filedin the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri. The plaintiffssubsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint which doesnot assert any claims against the Company. This complaintpurports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and the Company'sbehalf and against certain of FCStone's current and formerdirectors and officers and directly against the same individuals.The Company, FCStone and the defendants filed motions to dismisson multiple grounds.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle tosettle this matter during October 2012. The proposed settlementwould result in the Company incurring a legal cost of $250,000after consideration of insurance, and is subject to approval bythe court. The terms of the settlement are expected to bepresented to the court for approval before July 2013.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services groupfocused on domestic and select international markets. TheCompany's services include comprehensive risk management advisoryservices for commercial customers; execution of listed futures andoptions on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range ofcommodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and basemetals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;Debtors origination and asset management. During the quarterended March 31, 2011, the Company changed its name fromInternational Assets Holding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc.,following approval of the name change by the Company'sstockholders. INTL's businesses, which include the commoditiesadvisory and transaction execution firm FCStone Group, Inc., servemore than 10,000 commercial customers in more than 100 countriesthrough a network of offices in 12 countries around the world.

NEW YORK: "Ligon" Stop-and-Frisk Suit Gets Class Certification--------------------------------------------------------------Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that thesecond of three major cases alleging the New York City PoliceDepartment engages in an unconstitutional pattern of stopping andfrisking people without a reasonable suspicion that they areengaged in criminal activity has been deemed a class action.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin on Feb. 11 certified aclass in Ligon v. City of New York, 12-2274, a case where blackand Latino citizens in the Bronx allege police have been illegallystopping and frisking them as they enter and exit buildings thattake part in a police crime-fighting program.

Following a hearing in which she heard from individual plaintiffs,Judge Scheindlin found on Jan. 8 the plaintiffs were likely toprevail at trial on their claim that police were violating theFourth Amendment by stopping and frisking people who wereentering, leaving, or, in some cases, just passing by buildings inthe Bronx that participated in the Trespass Affidavit Program(TAP).

Formerly known as Operation Clean Halls, the TAP program allowspolice patrols of private buildings with the consent of the owneror landlord. Some 5,000 buildings participate in the program andthe police maintain it is an effective crime-fighting tool.

In January, Judge Scheindlin in Ligon enjoined the practice ofstopping people on suspicion of trespassing without anyindependent indication they were, in fact trespassing. The judgelater stayed her ruling until the remedy issue is sorted out. Thestay, she said, appeared to moot the city's appeal, and the citythen decided to withdraw the appeal, at least for the moment.

In her decision certifying the class on Feb. 11, Judge Scheindlinrejected the city's claim that the plaintiffs had not establishedthat their claims were typical of or common to the claims of theproposed class.

"In sum, plaintiffs and the putative class members were allegedlysubjected to the same unlawful conduct by NYPD officers under theauspices of a single NYPD program: unjustified [Terry v. Ohio]stops, not supported by reasonable suspicion, occurring outdoorsin the vicinity of TAP buildings in the Bronx on suspicion oftrespass," she said.

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court heldthat the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a police officerstops and frisks a person without probable cause to make an arrest-- as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that theperson has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

Floyd is scheduled for a bench trial on March 11, but could bepushed back one week.

In both cases, the city has argued that improved training isensuring that the stop-and-frisk practices comply with the FourthAmendment and the plaintiffs counter that training is inadequateand unconstitutional practices are still engrained in trainingmaterials and the mindset of patrolling officers.

The parties in both Ligon and Floyd are scheduled to submit onMarch 4 briefings on proposed remedies.

Among the remedies being considered by the judge are increasedtraining, new training materials that accurately state the law onFourth Amendment Terry stops, greater supervision and top-downaccountability to make sure that police are in compliance.Judge Scheindlin also raised the prospect of a court monitor tohelp ensure compliance.

Christopher Dunn of the New York Civil Liberties Union said onFeb. 13, "Certifying the class was correct and necessary giventhat the unconstitutional stopping and frisking we challenge isendemic to the Clean Halls program. We now look forward to JudgeScheindlin ordering the systemic relief needed to fix theprogram."

On Feb. 11, Judge Scheindlin held that consideration of anyremedies in Ligon and Floyd will be independent of any remedy inDavis v. City of New York, 10-cv-699. Class certification ispending in Davis, a case where plaintiffs allege persistent FourthAmendment violations by police in the buildings and on theproperty of the New York City Housing Authority.

The parties in Davis are awaiting a decision on their motions forsummary judgment, with briefing on the issue of classcertification on hold until Judge Scheindlin makes her decision.

Mark Zuckerman, senior counsel in the federal division of the LawDepartment, said in a statement, "We respectfully disagree withthe decision. We don't believe that class certification iswarranted, but it's only one step in the broader litigation."

NTS REALTY: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Merger------------------------------------------------------NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership disclosed that onFebruary 12, 2013, the Company received notice that a putativeclass action lawsuit was filed on February 12, 2013 in the Courtof Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, each ofthe members of the board of directors of NTS Realty Capital, Inc.,the Company's managing general partner, NTS Merger Parent, LLC andRealty Capital alleging, among other things, that the board ofdirectors breached their fiduciary duties to the unitholders ofthe Company in connection with the board's approval of the mergerbetween NTS Merger Sub, LLC and the Company. The complaint seeks,among other things, money damages.

Interested parties are urged to read relevant documents, when andif filed by the Company with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, because they will contain important information. TheCompany has filed a preliminary proxy statement and will fileother documents regarding the proposed merger with the SEC, andthe definitive proxy statement will be sent to unitholders seekingtheir approval of the matters discussed above at a special meetingof unitholders. Unitholders are urged to read the proxy statementand any other relevant document when they become available becausethey will contain important information about the Company, theproposed merger and related matters. Interested parties mayobtain a free copy of the definitive proxy statement (whenavailable) and other documents filed by the Company with the SECat the SEC's Web site at http://www.sec.gov

The Company, its managing general partner and its managing generalpartner's directors, executive officers and other members of itsmanagement and employees (including J.D. Nichols and Brian F.Lavin) may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxiesfrom the unitholders of the Company in connection with theproposed transactions. Information regarding the specialinterests of persons who may be deemed to be such participants inthe proposed transactions will be included in the proxy statementdescribed above. Additional information regarding the directorsand executive officers of the Company's managing general partneris also included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2011, which was filed with the SEC onMarch 23, 2012, and subsequent statements of changes in beneficialownership on file with the SEC. These documents are availablefree of charge at the SEC's Web site at http://www.sec.gov

About NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership

NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership currently owns, wholly, asa tenant in common with unaffiliated co-owners, or through jointventure investments with affiliated and unaffiliated thirdparties, twenty-four properties comprised of fifteen multifamilyproperties, seven office buildings and business centers and tworetail properties. The properties are located in and aroundLouisville and Lexington, Kentucky, Nashville and Cordova,Tennessee, Richmond, Virginia, Fort Lauderdale and Orlando,Florida, Indianapolis, Indiana and Atlanta, Georgia. TheCompany's limited partnership units are listed on the NYSE MKTplatform under the trading symbol of "NLP."

PANTRY INC: Dispositive Motions in Fuel Temperature Suits Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------The Pantry, Inc.'s dispositive motions in each of the lawsuitsover fuel temperature in which it has been named a defendantremain pending, according to the Company's February 5, 2013, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended December 27, 2012.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuitshave been filed in federal courts across the country againstnumerous companies in the petroleum industry. Major petroleumcompanies and significant retailers in the industry have beennamed as defendants in these lawsuits. Initially, the Company wasnamed as a defendant in eight of these cases, three of which haverecently been dismissed without prejudice. The Company remains asa defendant in five cases: one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v.Abercrombie Oil Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL, filed 3/7/07); one in Alabama (Cook,et al. v. ChevronUSA, Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 2:07-cv-750-WKW-CSC, filed8/22/07); one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed 6/5/07); one inTennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc., et al.,No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed 7/13/07); and one in South Carolina(Korleski v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., D.S.C.,No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL, filed 9/24/07). Pursuant to an Orderentered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation, all ofthe cases, including those in which the Company is named, havebeen transferred to the United States District Court for theDistrict of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial proceedings.The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they areretail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendantsagreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount ofmotor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallonswhich, at higher temperatures, contain less energy. These casesseek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants toinstall temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fueldispensing devices. In certain of the cases, including some ofthe cases in which the Company is named, plaintiffs also havealleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based ontemperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collecttaxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers thanthey paid on the same gallon of fuel. The plaintiffs in thesecases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid andpunitive damages. Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs and prejudgmentinterest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure tostate a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,2008. A number of the defendants, including the Company,subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matterjurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on thegrounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable"political questions." The Court denied the defendants' motion todismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, anddefendants request to appeal that decision to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,2010.

In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which the Company is not a party, theCourt granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasersseeking implementation of automated temperature controls and/orcertain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages.Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the TenthCircuit in June 2010, and that request was denied on August 31,2010. On November 12, 2011, Defendants in the Kansas case filed amotion to decertify the Kansas classes in light of a new favorableUnited States Supreme Court decision. OnJanuary 19, 2012, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion todecertify and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class asto liability and injunctive relief aspects of Plaintiffs' claims.The court has continued to deny certification of a damages class.On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas case returned averdict in favor of defendants finding that defendants did notviolate Kansas law by willfully failing to disclose temperatureand its effect on the energy content of motor fuel. On October 3,2012, the judge in the Kansas case also ruled that defendants'practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing temperature ordisclosing the effect of temperature was not unconscionable underKansas law.

The Company filed a motion on December 3, 2012, requesting thatcases filed in Arkansas and Virginia, to neither of which theCompany is a party, be remanded for further adjudication and theremaining cases be stayed until these two cases are concluded.Plaintiffs requested that cases filed in California, in which theCompany is not a party, be remanded for further adjudication andthe remaining cases be stayed until the California cases areconcluded.

On January 23, 2013, the judge ordered that the three Californiacases will be remanded for trial in the summer of 2013. Itappears that all remaining cases will be stayed while those casesare tried. The Company has opposed class certification and fileddispositive motions in each of the cases in which the Company hasbeen sued.

At this stage of proceedings, the Company says losses arereasonably possible, however, it cannot estimate its loss, rangeof loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits becausethere are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issuesthat will impact the amount of any potential liability, including,without limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or evenpermitted under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons ofmotor fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuelpurchased by plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not classcertification is proper in cases to which the Company is a party.An adverse outcome in this litigation could have a material effecton the Company's business, financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of convenience stores in the southeastern United States. TheCompany's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, andancillary products and services. Its merchandise products includecigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packagedbeverages, beer, and wine. The Company operates stores undervarious selected banners, which primarily include KangarooExpress. The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered inCary, North Carolina.

PANTRY INC: Hearing on Bid to Junk Suit Over Card Info on Feb. 19-----------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on The Pantry, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class actionlawsuit over the use of information on debit and credit cardreceipts has been scheduled for February 19, 2013, according tothe Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 27, 2012.

On October 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and aputative class of similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuitagainst The Pantry in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v.Kangaroo Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W). OnSeptember 9, 2010, a first amended complaint was filed addingEnger McConnell on behalf of herself and a putative class ofsimilarly situated individuals. The plaintiffs seek class actionstatus and allege that The Pantry included more information thanis permitted on electronically printed credit and debit cardreceipts in willful violation of the Fair and Accurate CreditTransactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g). Theamended complaint alleges that: (i) plaintiff Patrick Amason seeksto represent a subclass of those class members as to whom theCompany printed receipts containing the first four and last fourdigits of their credit and/or debit card numbers; and (ii)Plaintiff Enger McConnell seeks to represent a subclass of thoseclass members as to whom the Company printed receipts containingall digits of their credit and/or debit card numbers. Theplaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well asattorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanentinjunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

On July 25, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' initial motion forclass certification but granted the plaintiffs the right to filean amended motion. On October 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amendedmotion for class certification seeking to certify two classes.The first purported class, represented by Mr. Amason, consists of(A) all natural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used atan in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company fromJune 4, 2009, through the date of the final judgment in theaction; (B) where the transaction was in a Company store locatedin the State of Alabama; and (C) in connection with thetransaction, a receipt was printed by Retalix software containingthe first four and last four digits of the credit/debit cardnumber on the receipt provided to the customer. The secondpurported class, represented by Ms. McConnell, consists of (A) allnatural persons whose credit and/or debit card was used at an in-store point of sale owned or operated by the Company from June 1,2009, through the date of the final judgment in the action; and(B) in connection with the transaction, a receipt was printedcontaining all of the digits of the credit/debit card numbers onthe receipt provided to the customer. The Company is opposing themotion for class certification, and also has made a motion todismiss the plaintiffs' claims on the basis that the plaintiffslack standing or alternatively to stay the case until the SupremeCourt of the United States rules in First American Financial Corp.v. Edwards, another case involving a standing issue. On January19, 2012, the Court issued an order staying the case until adecision is issued in the Edwards case, and subsequentlyadministratively terminated plaintiffs' motion for classcertification, subject to plaintiffs' right to refile the motionafter the stay is removed. On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ofthe United States dismissed the writ of certiorari in the Edwardscase as having been improvidently granted, an action that has noprecedential effect on the Company's case.

The parties filed a Joint Report to the Court on July 10, 2012,requesting that plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certificationand the Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing be deemedrefiled. A hearing on the Company's Motion to Dismiss has beenscheduled for February 19, 2013.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Company says losses arereasonably possible, however; it cannot reasonably estimate itsloss, range of loss or liability, if any, related to this lawsuitbecause there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legalissues that will impact the amount of the Company's potentialliability, including, without limitation: (i) whether theplaintiffs have standing to assert their claims; (ii) whether aclass or classes will be certified; (iii) if a class or classesare certified, the identity and number of the putative classmembers; and (iv) if a class or classes are certified, theresolution of certain unresolved statutory interpretation issuesthat may impact the size of the putative class(es) and whether ornot the plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages. An adverseoutcome in this litigation could have a material effect on theCompany's business, financial condition, results of operations andcash flows.

The Pantry, Inc. -- http://www.pantry.com/-- operates a chain of convenience stores in the southeastern United States. TheCompany's stores offer a selection of merchandise, fuel, andancillary products and services. Its merchandise products includecigarettes, grocery and other tobacco products, packagedbeverages, beer, and wine. The Company operates stores undervarious selected banners, which primarily include KangarooExpress. The Company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered inCary, North Carolina.

PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals in "ADESF" Suit Remain Pending in Brazil---------------------------------------------------------------In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker HealthDefense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip MorrisMarketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the CentralCourts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filedJuly 25, 1995, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary andanother member of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, aconsumer organization, is seeking damages for smokers and formersmokers and injunctive relief.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable withouthearing evidence. The court did not assess moral or actualdamages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moraldamages" of R$1,000 (approximately $540) per smoker per full yearof smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of thedate of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, whichwere to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size ofthe class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao PauloCourt of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled withouthearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court forfurther proceedings. In May 2011, the trial court dismissed theclaim. Plaintiff has appealed. In addition, the defendants fileda constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on thebasis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring thelawsuit. This appeal is still pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: Sao Paulo Prosecutor's Appeal Still Pending----------------------------------------------------------In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor ofSao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,2007, Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary is adefendant. The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of the State ofSao Paulo, is seeking (i) unspecified damages on behalf of allsmokers nationwide, former smokers, and their relatives; (ii)unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to environmentaltobacco smoke ("ETS") nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii)reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred for thetreatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian States andMunicipalities, and the Federal District. In an interim rulingissued in December 2007, the trial court limited the scope of thisclaim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In December 2008, theSeventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a decision declaring thatit lacked jurisdiction because the case involved issues similar tothe ADESF case and should be transferred to the Nineteenth LowerCivil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending. Thecourt further stated that these cases should be consolidated forthe purposes of judgment. In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court ofAppeals reversed the Seventh Civil Court's decision thatconsolidated the cases, finding that they are based on differentlegal claims and are progressing at different stages ofproceedings. This case was returned to the Seventh Civil Court ofSao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary filed its closingarguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.This decision has been appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

In the first class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v.Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company'ssubsidiary and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. and itsformer importer) are defendants. The plaintiffs filed a purportedclass action claiming that the class members were misled by thedescriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes aresafer than full flavor cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery ofthe purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation fordistress for each class member. Hearings took place in Novemberand December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legalrequirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action.The parties' briefing on class certification was completed inMarch 2011. In November 2012, the court denied classcertification and dismissed the individual claims. Plaintiffshave appealed.

PHILIP MORRIS: Israeli Ct. Has Yet to Take Action in "Navon" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Philip Morris International Inc. said in its February 7, 2013,Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionthat the District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, has not yettaken any action in the class action lawsuit filed by Navon, etal.

The claims in the second class action pending in Israel, Navon, etal. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company'sindemnitee (the Company's distributor) and other members of theindustry are similar to those in El-Roy case, and the case iscurrently stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy. The El-Roy trial court recently denied class certification,but the Navon trial court has not yet taken any action.

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit vs. Unit Still Ongoing----------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the class action lawsuit brought by Cecilia Letourneauagainst a subsidiary of Philip Morris International Inc. isongoing, according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 8-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTIMacdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturersare defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seekingcompensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member ofthe class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class wascertified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled thatthe federal government would remain as a third party in the case.In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began onMarch 12, 2012.

At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into 2013 andpossibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate pointafter the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Blais" Suit Still Ongoing in Canada------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the class action lawsuit commenced by Conseil QuebecoisSur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais against a subsidiaryof Philip Morris International Inc. is ongoing, according to theCompany's February 7, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil QuebecoisSur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial TobaccoLtd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, theCompany's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers aredefendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and anindividual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecifiedpunitive damages for each member of the class who allegedlysuffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class wascertified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled thatthe federal government will remain as a third party in the case.In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began onMarch 12, 2012.

At the present pace, trial is expected to last well into 2013 andpossibly 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate pointafter the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Winnipeg Still Dormant-----------------------------------------------------In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. CanadianTobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, Philip Morris InternationalInc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USAInc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industryare defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges herown addiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructivepulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma and mild reversible lungdisease resulting from the use of tobacco products. She isseeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf ofa proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,dependents and family members, as well as restitution of profits,and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly causedby tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counselinformed defendants that he did not anticipate taking any actionin this case while he pursues the class action filed inSaskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: Prelim. Motions Remain Pending in "Adams" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. CanadianTobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, Philip MorrisInternational Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PhilipMorris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of theindustry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronicobstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use oftobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecifiedpunitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of allsmokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and haveallegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heartdisease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.Preliminary motions are pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: "Semple" Class Suit in Nova Scotia Still Dormant---------------------------------------------------------------In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. CanadianTobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trialcourt), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, Philip MorrisInternational Inc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PhilipMorris USA Inc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of theindustry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and chronicobstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") resulting from the use oftobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecifiedpunitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of allsmokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well asrestitution of profits, and reimbursement of government healthcare costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity inthis case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues theclass action filed in Saskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit in Alberta, Canada Remains Dormant---------------------------------------------------------------In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. CanadianTobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, Philip Morris InternationalInc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USAInc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industryare defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges herown addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis andsevere sinus infections resulting from the use of tobaccoproducts. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitivedamages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,their estates, dependents and family members, restitution ofprofits, and reimbursement of government health care costsallegedly caused by tobacco products. To date, the Company, itssubsidiaries, and its indemnitees have not been properly servedwith the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated whileplaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed inSaskatchewan, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia----------------------------------------------------------------In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, BritishColumbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris InternationalInc., its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USAInc. and Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industryare defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges hisown addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting fromthe use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory andunspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed classcomprised of all smokers who were alive onJune 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedlycaused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants fromJanuary 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. Defendants havefiled jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this actionshould not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan classaction, the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Suit Still Pending in British Columbia----------------------------------------------------------------In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. ImperialTobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,Canada, filed June 25, 2010, Philip Morris International Inc., itssubsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. andAltria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry aredefendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, allegesthat the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and sufferedfrom emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She isseeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf ofa proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseasesallegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and familymembers, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendantsfrom January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. Defendantshave filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that thisaction should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan,the Adams case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel in "Jacklin" Suit To Cease Case Activity---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff's counsel in the class action lawsuit initiated bySuzanne Jacklin in Ontario, Canada have indicated that they do notintend to take any action in this case in the near future,Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its February 7,2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario SuperiorCourt of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the Company, itssubsidiaries, and its indemnitees (Philip Morris USA Inc. andAltria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry aredefendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her ownaddiction to tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonarydisease ("COPD") resulting from the use of tobacco products. Sheis seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalfof a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked aminimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, orsuffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well asrestitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel have indicated thatthey do not intend to take any action in this case in the nearfuture.

LED flashlight wires can protrude through the stuffed toy, posinga laceration hazard.

One incident was reported involving a consumer who noticed anexposed wire. No injuries were reported.

The recalled Beamerzzz stuffed toys come with LED flashlights sewninto the left paw. The toys are 12 inches high and come in fiveanimal types. The model number can be found on the hang tag onthe left ear. Affected toys are marked with manufacturing code111208-02 on the sewn in label located in the left rear portion ofthe toy. The recalled styles are:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold atCabela's stores and online at Cabelas.com from September 2012through November 2012 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away fromchildren and contact Purr-Fection by MJC for a replacement toy.Purr-Fection by MJC may be reached at (800) 359-0254 from 9:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or online athttp://www.purr-fection.com/and click on the orange product recall tab at the top of the page for more information.

RETAIL ADVENTURES: Jan Cameron May Face Class Action Over Rescue----------------------------------------------------------------Cara Waters, writing for Crikey, reports that bargain-huntingbusinesswoman Jan Cameron has bought back into the retail chainshe attempted to rescue in 2009 -- but she could face a classaction.

Ms. Cameron has bought back Retail Adventures for AUD58.9 millionafter the business was put into administration in October lastyear. Retail Adventures is Australia's largest discount varietystore operator and operates Crazy Clark's, Sam's Warehouse, Go-Loand Chickenfeed, with around 236 stores and 5000 employees.

Ms. Cameron is not just a retail investor; she made headlines in2011 when she bought Tasmania's controversial Triabunna woodchipmill, with media figure and wotif founder Graeme Wood. Ms.Cameron initially bought Retail Adventures out of administrationin 2009 for AUD85 million and invested another AUD80 million overthe past three years to keep the business afloat.

Administrator Vaughan Strawbridge of Deloitte RestructuringService said in a statement on Feb. 12 the offer received from Ms.Cameron's company, DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd., was thehighest received following a public sale process.

"This is a positive outcome. The sale will ensure jobs areretained for approximately 4700 employees, with many storeslocated in regional areas. Trade with key suppliers will alsocontinue, landlords will retain tenants, and the network of morethan 210 stores will continue to serve local communities andcustomers."

Mr. Strawbridge says the sale process was complex and time isneeded to fully transition supplier contracts, leases andemployees to DSG.

Landlords are still to agree on 131 store leases. Mr. Strawbridgesays DSG will continue to cover entitlements for employees whohave been made redundant to date. "This will continue, and thepurchase price has been adjusted for employee entitlements assumedand monies paid to the administrators to cover redundancies paid,"he said.

Mr. Strawbridge says he expects a deed of company arrangementwould be put forward which would need to result in a better returnto creditors than had Retail Adventures been placed intoliquidation. "The ultimate likely recovery for creditors isunknown at this time and forms part of the administrator's ongoinginvestigations," he said.

But unsecured creditors who are owed AUD96 million are unlikely tobe happy with the deal, and Ms. Cameron could face a class actionrun by litigation funder IMF. IMF managing director Hugh McLernontold Crikey sister publication SmartCompany the litigation funderhas been supporting creditors to push the administrator to carryout a public examination of the offices of Retail Adventures.

"This examination will be primarily to determine whether thecompany was allowed to trade while it was insolvent and whetherthere were any serious preferences paid before it went intoadministration," he said.

Mr. McLernon says the unsecured creditors are also very interestedin the question of whether the security that is held by anotherCameron company called Retail Adventures Holdings Pty Ltd. isenforceable.

"What we have suggested is that the administrator should havealready carried out those investigations, but seeing as he hasn't,he should call a meeting as soon as possible to give the creditorsan opportunity to put the company into liquidation and enable themto take their own action against the officers of the company," hesaid. "The reason for that is it seems absolutely clear that theAUD100 million worth of unsecured creditors will not get a centfrom the sale proceeds of the business."

Mr. McLernon says IMF is in the process of formalizing thelitigation. A spokesperson for Deloitte told SmartCompany theadministrators were not aware of any legal actions which had beenproposed or commenced. "The administrators have not received anyinformation from any creditor on any specific issues of concern,"he said.

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Defends Suits Over Wild Bird Food Products--------------------------------------------------------------The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is defending itself against aconsolidated class action lawsuit related to its wild bird foodproducts, according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended December 29, 2012.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that werethe subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has beennamed as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on andafter June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead CaseNo. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege variousstatutory and common law claims associated with the Company's saleof wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into inpreviously pending government proceedings associated with suchsales. The plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and variouspurported class members monetary damages, restitution, injunctiverelief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, interest and costs.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the consolidatedaction. Given the early stages of the action, the Company cannotmake a determination as to whether it could have a material effecton the Company's financial condition, results of operations orcash flows and has not recorded any accruals with respect thereto.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: E-Data Examination Ongoing in Antitrust Suit----------------------------------------------------------------An expert is currently examining electronic data produced by asubsidiary of Southwest Airlines Co. in the antitrust class actionlawsuit pending in Georgia, according to the Company's February 7,2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws andseeking certification as a class action was filed against DeltaAir Lines, Inc. ("Delta") and AirTran Airways in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta onMay 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, thatAirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation ofSection 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought trebledamages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities inthe United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such feeson domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filingof the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identicalcomplaints also seeking certification as class actions were filedin federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida;and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated beforea single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A ConsolidatedAmended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Deltaand AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes andto raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Inaddition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage feespaid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaintseeks injunctive relief against a broad range of allegedanticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims thatAirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; theCourt let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to theimposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity andpricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed amotion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed.The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion.The original period for fact and expert discovery was scheduled toend on February 25, 2011, but on February 3, 2012, the Courtgranted plaintiffs' motion for supplemental discovery becauseDelta discovered that it had not produced certain electronicdocuments. The period for supplemental discovery against AirTranended on May 3, 2012, but discovery disputes between plaintiffsand Delta have continued. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed aStipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claimthat AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. AirTran andDelta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remainingclaims on August 31, 2012. The plaintiffs filed motions to compelDelta to produce additional documents and for sanctions based onalleged failures to produce electronic data. On November 19,2012, the Court ordered plaintiffs to appoint an expert to examineDelta's production of electronic data and suspended the briefingschedule for the summary judgment motion until the expert hascompleted his work.

It is AirTran's understanding that the expert's work is ongoing.While AirTran has denied all allegations of wrongdoing, includingthose in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defendvigorously any and all such allegations, results of legalproceedings such as this one cannot be predicted with certainty.Regardless of its merit, this litigation and any potential futureclaims against the Company or AirTran may be both time consumingand disruptive to the Company's operations and cause significantexpense and diversion of management attention. Should AirTran andthe Company fail to prevail in this or other matters, the Companymay be faced with significant monetary damages or injunctiverelief that could materially adversely affect its business andmight materially affect its financial condition and operatingresults.

SPORT CHALET: Defends "Bennett" Class Action Suit in California---------------------------------------------------------------Sport Chalet, Inc. is defending a class action lawsuit initiatedby Brian Bennett in California, according to the Company'sFebruary 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2012.

On April 12, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filedin the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,entitled Brian Bennett v. Sport Chalet, Inc. and Sport Chalet TeamSales, Inc. (Case No. BC482472), alleging violations of theCalifornia Civil Code. The complaint was brought as a purportedclass action on behalf of wheelchair-bound persons located inCalifornia. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that theCompany violated California state law by failing to make certainstore locations accessible to individuals with disabilities. Theplaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, unspecifiedamounts of damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs'demands for injunctive relief claim that the features of some ofthe Company's California stores are not in compliance with stateor federal regulations and therefore are not accessible toindividuals who use wheelchairs. The Company intends to defendthis litigation vigorously.

STANDARD FIRE: Monetary Limits on Class Action at Issue-------------------------------------------------------Michelle Keahey, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that SupremeCourt Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson reported late last monththat she received a trip worth $50,000 to Italy in 2012 fromplaintiff attorney W.H. Taylor, a friend of her class actionattorney husband John C. Goodson.

Justice Goodson and her husband both reported the gift from Mr.Taylor in their recent statements of financial interest filed withthe Arkansas Secretary of State.

In a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a spokesman forthe jurist said that Justice Goodson would recuse herself from anycases involving Mr. Taylor.

The European trip is not the first extravagance Mr. Taylor hasbestowed upon the justice. According to state financialdisclosure statements, Justice Goodson accepted a $12,000Caribbean cruise from Mr. Taylor in 2011.

Justice Goodson recently attracted media attention after visitingbriefly with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in what wasdescribed as a "courtesy" meeting on the same day the high courtheard oral arguments in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, acase arising from Miller County, Arkansas and one being litigatedby her husband.

According to Arkansas Business, Arkansas Supreme Court spokeswomanStephanie Harris said the meeting took place shortly after oralarguments, held on Jan. 7.

"Justice Scalia and Justice Goodson exchanged pleasantries," saidMs. Harris, according to Arkansas Business. "Justice Scalia wasmade aware of Justice Goodson's husband's involvement in the casebefore he extended the courtesy to her. They never spoke aboutthe case."

The Arkansas Business also reported that Kathy Arberg, a publicinformation officer for the U.S. Supreme Court, said, "JusticeScalia briefly greeted Justice Goodson, whom he did not know, atthe request of one of her colleagues on the Arkansas SupremeCourt. The extending of such a courtesy is not at all uncommon."

The central argument in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowlesconcerns efforts by lawyers, including Mr. Goodson, to placemonetary limits on class actions in an effort to keep the lawsuitsin so-called plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as MillerCounty.

The underlying "Knowles" class action -- which claims thatStandard Fire breached its contract by systematically underpayingloss claims -- was initiated by attorney Goodson, who has mademillions in attorney's fees from similar cases in Miller CountyCircuit Court.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the issue before the endof its current term.

In December, Justice Goodson was also in the news for being namedas the Arkansas Supreme Court's liaison to its Committee onProfessional Conduct, which oversees the ethical performance oflawyers.

Justice Goodson was first sworn in as a judge of the ArkansasCourt of Appeals in May 2008 and stayed in that office until sheleft for the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2011.

She is currently serving an eight-year term, which will end in2018. During her most recent campaign for the high court, she ranon a family-interest platform.

Shortly after her election, her husband of 14 years, Mark Henry,sued for divorce. She married John Goodson about a year later.

STATE COMPENSATION: Faces Auditors' Overtime Class Action---------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that the State CompensationInsurance Fund forces auditors to work off the clock, cheatingthem of overtime, a class action claims in Federal Court.

SUNPOWER CORP: $19MM Deal Excluded in Non-GAAP Financial Measures-----------------------------------------------------------------SunPower Corporation disclosed in its February 7, 2013, Form 8-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that theagreement in principle it reached in December 2012 to settle aconsolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7 million wasexcluded from its non-GAAP financial measures as it is non-recurring and not reflective of ongoing operating results.

In December 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle tosettle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7million and recorded a charge of the same amount in the fourthquarter of 2012. The lawsuits arose from the Audit Committee'sinvestigation announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certainunsubstantiated accounting entries. The Company excludes thischarge from its non-GAAP financial measures as it is non-recurringand not reflective of ongoing operating results. Excluding thisdata provides investors with a basis to compare the company'sperformance against the performance of other companies withoutsuch charges.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-- an integrated solar products and services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solarelectric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scalepower plant customers worldwide. It operates in two segments,Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial.SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA,SAS.

TOWERS WATSON: Awaits Appellate Ct. Directive Regarding Mediation-----------------------------------------------------------------Towers Watson & Co. said in its February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended December 31, 2012, that it is awaiting appellate courtconfirmation as to whether briefing on an appeal from a summaryjudgment in favor of defendants of a consolidated shareholderlawsuit will be stayed or the parties are required participate inits mediation program.

Towers Watson was formed on January 1, 2010, from the merger ofTowers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. ("Towers Perrin") andWatson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc. ("Watson Wyatt"), two leadingprofessional services firms that traced their roots back more than100 years.

A putative class action lawsuit filed by certain formershareholders of Towers Perrin (the "Dugan Action") previously wasreported in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on FormS-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed on November 9, 2009, by theJupiter Saturn Holding Company (the "Registration Statement"). Asreported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed onNovember 5, 2009, against Towers Perrin, members of its board ofdirectors, and certain members of senior management in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin'ssenior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class offormer Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on orafter January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specifiedcriteria. The complaint does not contain a quantification of thedamages sought.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin ofa settlement demand from the plaintiffs in the Dugan Action.Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain aquantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlementdemand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December8, 2009, and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlementdemand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrinshareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May orJune 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class inthe Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims insubstantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011. Theseplaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and donot seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder whoseparated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 whenTowers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to thecreation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO ("eHRO"),commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action") in theUnited States District Court of the Eastern District ofPennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the sameform as those alleged in the Dugan Action. Towers Perrincontributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) ofeHRO. Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers Perrinshareholders who separated from service in connection with TowersPerrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who areexcluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action. TowersWatson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time oftheir separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffswere redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when theseindividuals separated from employment. The complaints allegevariously that there either was a promise that Towers Perrin wouldremain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in theevent of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receivecompensation (Allen and Pao Actions). Plaintiffs allege that byagreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin at book valueupon separation, they and other members of the putative classesrelied upon these alleged promises, which they claim were breachedas a result of the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyattand Towers Perrin. The complaints assert claims for breach ofcontract, breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty,promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, andconstructive trust, and seek equitable relief including anaccounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and theimposition of a constructive trust. On January 20, 2010, thecourt consolidated the three actions for all purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaints in their entireties. By order dated September 30,2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claimfor a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to allother claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30, 2010order, defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints onOctober 22, 2010. The parties have completed fact discovery.Neither the plaintiffs in Dugan or Pao has moved for classcertification. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment onall claims in all actions on December 23, 2011. The court heardargument on June 19, 2012, and on December 11, 2012, granteddefendants' motion, and entered judgment in favor of defendants onall claims.

On January 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a joint notice of theirintent to appeal the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Third Circuit. Towers Watson awaits confirmation as towhether the appellate court will stay briefing of the appeal andrequire the parties to participate in its mediation program. Inthat event, Towers Watson would expect the appellate court toissue a briefing schedule only after an unsuccessful conclusion ofthe mediation.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuitsare without merit and that the court's decision to grant summaryjudgment in favor of defendants should be upheld on appeal.However, the outcome of any appeal is uncertain and may beunfavorable to Towers Watson. Given the stage of the proceedings,the Company has concluded that a loss is neither probable norestimable, and that the Company is unable to estimate a reasonablypossible loss or range of loss.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Continues to Defend Ingenix-Related Suits-------------------------------------------------------------UnitedHealth Group Incorporated continues to defend itself againstclass action lawsuits arising from its use of a databasepreviously maintained by Ingenix, Inc., according to the Company'sFebruary 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year endedDecember 31, 2012.

The Company is involved in a number of lawsuits challengingreimbursement amounts for non-network health care services basedon the Company's use of a database previously maintained byIngenix, Inc. (now known as OptumInsight), including putativeclass actions and multidistrict litigation brought on behalf ofmembers of Aetna and WellPoint. These lawsuits allege, among otherthings, that the database licensed to these companies by Ingenixwas flawed and that Ingenix conspired with these companies tounderpay their members' claims and seek unspecified damages andtreble damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, interest, costsand attorneys' fees. The Company is vigorously defending theselawsuits. In 2012, the Company was dismissed as a party from asimilar lawsuit involving Cigna and its members. The Companycannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that mayresult from these matters due to the procedural status of thecases, dispositive motions that remain pending, the absence ofclass certification in any of the cases, the lack of a formaldemand on the Company by the plaintiffs, and the involvement ofother insurance companies as defendants.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated operates as a diversified healthand well-being company in the United States. The Company isheadquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota.

VIRGIN MEDIA: Being Sold to Liberty for Too Little, Suit Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Jeff Grimsley, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Neil Berkett, James Mooney, Eamonn O'Hare, CharlesAllen, James Chiddix, Andrew Cole, William Huff, Gordon McCallum,John Rigsby, Steven Simmons, Doreen Toben, George Zoffinger,Virgin Media, Inc., Liberty Global, Inc., Lynx Europe Limited,Lynx US Merger Co 1 LLC, Lynx US Merger Co 2 LLC, Viper USMergerCO 1 LLC, and Viper US MergerCO 2 LLC, Case No. 650469/2013(N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 12, 2013) is brought on behalf of thepublic stockholders of Virgin Media against members of its Boardof Directors for their breaches of fiduciary duties arising out oftheir attempt to sell the Company to Liberty Global by means of analleged unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Directors have breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing tothe Proposed Transaction for grossly inadequate consideration, Mr.Grimsley contends. He argues that given Virgin Media's recentstrong performance as well as its future growth prospects, theconsideration shareholders will receive under the ProposedTransaction is inadequate and undervalues the Company.

Mr. Grimsley is a shareholder of Virgin Media.

Virgin Media is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of theCompany. Liberty Global is a Delaware corporation based inEnglewood, Colorado. Liberty Global is an international cablecompany with operations in 13 countries. The Defendant MergerSubs were created for the purposes of effectuating the ProposedTransaction.

District Judge James C. Mahan said, "in order for the parties tofully brief their issues and arguments, as well as participate inany further mediation the parties wish, the court finds itappropriate to deny as moot the current motion to certify classaction."

However, Judge Mahan denied the motion without prejudice and the"Plaintiff may re-file its motion to certify class action anddefendant may file its proposed motion to dismiss, or, in thealternative, summary judgment depending on the outcome of themediation."

A copy of the District Court's February 12, 2013 Order isavailable at http://is.gd/2s66Otfrom Leagle.com.

WMS INDUSTRIES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Conlee" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------WMS Industries Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion todismiss an amended complaint submitted by Wayne C. Conlee,according to the Company's February 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2012.

On May 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed against theCompany and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois by Wayne C. Conlee(the "Conlee lawsuit"). On October 13, 2011, the lead plaintifffiled an amended complaint in the Conlee lawsuit. As amended, thelawsuit alleged that, during the period from September 21, 2010,to August 4, 2011, (the date the Company announced its fiscal 2011financial results), the Company made material misstatements andomitted material information related to the Company's fiscal year2011 guidance. Plaintiff sought to certify a class ofstockholders who purchased stock between these dates. The lawsuitspecifically alleged violations of (i) Section 10(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "34 Act"), andRule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the 34Act. The amended complaint sought unspecified damages. TheCompany filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint onDecember 8, 2011, and, on July 25, 2012, the Court granted theCompany's motion without prejudice.

On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a further amendedcomplaint, which re-asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the 34 Act and under SEC Rule 10b-5. The Company filed amotion to dismiss the further amended complaint on October 26,2012. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their oppositionto the Company's motion. The Company filed its reply memorandumon December 21, 2012. The court has not yet ruled on theCompany's motion.

WMS Industries Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and saleof coin-operated and home video games, pinball and novelty gamesand video lottery terminals and gaming devices. The Company isheadquartered in Waukegan, Illinois.

* Robins Geller at Center of Confidential Witness Conundrum-----------------------------------------------------------Thomson Reuters' Alison Frankel said "Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowdhas been at the center of what I've previously called theconfidential witness conundrum: the pervasive phenomenon in whichformer employees cited in securities class action complaintsrefute their statements to plaintiffs' lawyers when they'recontacted by defense lawyers. Securities class action lawyers, asyou know, aren't permitted to serve discovery demands ondefendants until they've gotten past dismissal motions, so theircomplaints rely heavily on allegations by confidential informants.But former employees are often subject to confidentialityprovisions in severance agreements. Depending on which side youbelieve, plaintiffs' lawyers routinely misrepresent theinformation their investigators have received from confidentialwitnesses -- or former employees get scared and recant when theiridentity is revealed and their severance is endangered."

Defense lawyers have claimed that just about every significantplaintiffs' firm has lied about information obtained from formeremployees, but Robbins Geller (which, after all, files more casesthan anyone else in the securities class action bar) has been onthe receiving end of more defense accusations than anyone else.That was a dangerous dynamic for the firm, since every newaccusation refers back to the old ones.

But Robbins Geller just got good news in a hard-fought fight overconfidential witnesses in a case in Georgia, continuing the firm'srun of success in fending off allegations of misrepresentation.U.S. District Judge William Duffey of Atlanta decided to forgo anyaction against the plaintiffs' firm, even though Robbins Geller'sown investigator in the case he was overseeing, a class actionagainst SunTrust Banks, had contacted the court to contradict whatthe firm told the judge about its lawyers' contacts with arecanting informant. Judge Duffey said Robbins Geller's behaviorwas not "in keeping with the conduct expected of attorneyspracticing before this court," but concluded that the firm hadn'tcommitted misconduct amounting to "an actionable violation of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Judge Duffey's order ended a five-month headache for RobbinsGeller that started last September, when Desiree Torres, anindependent investigator working on the SunTrust case for thefirm, contacted the judge's clerk to say that she was troubled byinformation Robbins Geller had presented to the court. (Duffeyexplained the backstory in an order in October.) Plaintiffs'lawyers had supposedly told the judge that they didn't know one oftheir witnesses had left the bank before events alleged in theirpleadings. But Ms. Torres said that wasn't true. She told thecourt that Robbins Geller lawyers were present when sheinterviewed the former SunTrust employee. Not only did RobbinsGeller know when he left the bank, she said, but also knew that hehad disavowed knowledge of the bank's conduct after his departure.

Judge Duffey ordered a hearing on the apparent discrepancy betweenthe firm's assurances and Ms. Torres's account. (That order, inturn, prompted problems for defense counsel in another RobbinsGeller case, an ongoing class action against Regions Financial infederal court in Birmingham, Alabama. A lawyer for individualdefendants in the Regions case sent a letter to Judge Duffey,claiming that there were similar allegations against RobbinsGeller in the Alabama case and asking the judge to keep theSunTrust hearing open to the public. The letter sparked an angryresponse from the federal judge overseeing the Regions case, whohad already certified a class despite defense arguments that fiveconfidential informants had recanted their purported statements tothe plaintiffs' firm.) At the Dec. 18 hearing before Judge Duffeyin the SunTrust case, Ms. Torres testified about "her concernsabout the manner in which the information she collected from factwitnesses in this action was presented to the court," according tolast week's order. Robbins Geller then offered its version of itslitigation and case-management strategy, the judge said.

Judge Duffey wasn't happy about what he heard. "The court remainstroubled by the conduct of plaintiffs' counsel in failing tocorrect representations made in their pleadings," he wrote. "Thedecision not to correct the record after counsel became aware ofthe court's reliance on plaintiffs' representations is perplexingand disappointing." Nevertheless, he said, Robbins Geller hadn'tcommitted an actionable violation, and since he had alreadydismissed the class action, he decided not to take further action.Ms. Torres has resigned as an investigator, Judge Duffey noted ina footnote.

Judge Duffey is the second federal judge to hold a hearing onconfidential witnesses in a Robbins Geller securities classaction. As previously reported, U.S. Senior District Judge JedRakoff ordered testimony last fall from recanting witnesses in acase against Lockheed. After a seven-hour session, Judge Rakofftold both sides that he found the plaintiffs' investigator (notMs. Torres, in this case) to be credible but was concerned aboutrelying on double-hearsay evidence from the informants. TheLockheed case subsequently settled in December, though terms havenot yet been disclosed.

Robbins Geller hasn't heard the last of the confidential witnessissue. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the firm'sappeal of the dismissal of a class action against Boeing, whichwas tossed after a confidential witness recanted statementsattributed to him. Both Robbins Geller and Boeing have alreadysent Judge Duffey's order to the appeals court.

Robbins partner Patrick Coughlin told me the firm is "satisfied"with Judge Duffey's order. "We believe we reacted as quickly aswe could under the circumstances to make the record clear," hesaid. SunTrust counsel Timothy Mast of Troutman Sanders declinedto comment.

* Vague Scienter Standards Result to Judicial Bias--------------------------------------------------Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that at therecent Professional Liability Underwriting Society's D&OSymposium, U.S. Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff took great careto say almost nothing newsworthy as a panelist discussing trendsin securities class action litigation. Almost nothing. JudgeRakoff did make one controversial point. The Private SecuritiesLitigation Reform Act of 1996, he said, gave judges tremendousdiscretion to decide if a class action complaint should bedismissed. As a result, Judge Rakoff said, trial judges are toolikely to apply their own ideology in deciding whether securitiescases should go forward.

A recently published article in the Case Western Reserve LawReview backs Judge Rakoff's theory with quantitative evidence.Authors Dain Donelson and Robert Prentice, of the University ofTexas's McCombs School of Business, looked at 144 securities fraudclass actions against major accounting firms to determine whetherthey could discern a pattern in rulings on the defendants'fraudulent intent. They could not. After a lot of calculationsinvolving squiggly symbols and underlying "dependent variables"such as regulatory investigations and accounting restatements,Messrs. Donelson and Prentice concluded that "few factors areconsistently viewed by the courts as indicative (or not) ofauditor scienter."

"The law of pleading scienter against external auditors in(securities fraud) cases is so vague and inconsistent that, as apractical matter, judges have virtually unfettered discretion toreach any conclusion they deem appropriate," the paper said.

The Case Western study, as the authors acknowledge, builds onprevious examinations of securities class action case law since1996, which more or less agree that uncertainty has permittedtrial judges considerable latitude in scienter rulings. Auditorcases are a special class, Messrs. Donelson and Prentice wrote,because of the "special treatment" they have traditionally enjoyedunder laws that generally discourage liability against them andbecause of particular red flags that crop up in cases againstthem.

The authors discount auditors' grousing that uncertainty worksagainst them, calling the fear that auditors will be held liablein frivolous cases "overblown." But they say that both auditordefendants and securities class action lawyers suffer whenuncertainty about the law prevents them from assessing thesettlement value of cases. That leads to prolonged and inefficientlitigation, which benefits neither side.

Moreover, the third part of the paper discusses the unseen biasesthat judges bring to discretionary decisions. "While few questionfederal judges' subjective honesty, there are substantial groundsupon which to challenge their rationality and objectivity," theauthors wrote. They proceed to discuss such factors asoverconfidence; self-serving bias, which leads people to reachconclusions supporting their pre-existing views; and hindsightbias, which overemphasizes the ability to have predicted events.The paper presumes that most judges go into cases with a bias infavor of accountants and against class action lawyers. When thatbias dovetails with their broad discretion to determine dismissalmotions, the authors write, "it seems more likely that plaintiffswill be disadvantaged, but whatever the direction of bias,unfettered discretion is likely to lead to more judicial errors ofjudgment than would occur under a regime of clearer and moresettled law."

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.